This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

If you were in the Presidents chair, making the decision, what decision would be the right one.
Capture or kill?
I vote for kill.

I think you still miss my point. I don't care that they killed as much as I care that publicly it was a CAPTURE or kill mission that was in fact executed as a KILL mission. You do understand that a capture or kill mission means that you preferably capture if you can do so safely, and kill is the second option. By the killing Seals own words, OBL was standing with his hand on his wife's shoulder posed as though expecting them and ready for surrender.

I think you still miss my point. I don't care that they killed as much as I care that publicly it was a CAPTURE or kill mission that was in fact executed as a KILL mission. You do understand that a capture or kill mission means that you preferably capture if you can do so safely, and kill is the second option. By the killing Seals own words, OBL was standing with his hand on his wife's shoulder posed as though expecting them and ready for surrender.

I understood the point. If I was making the decision, I would have stated publicly it was a capture or kill mission, and that was the missions intent. But an order would have been given to ensure that it was a kill mission.
And you would have done differently?

Originally Posted by Fenton

Hillary is the only defense I or anyone else needs.

Originally Posted by Erod

The damage to the black community from all this will be devastating.Not only on public perception and reputation, but cops simply won't want to police these neighborhoods anymore.

I understood the point. If I was making the decision, I would have stated publicly it was a capture or kill mission, and that was the missions intent. But an order would have been given to ensure that it was a kill mission.
And you would have done differently?

Well, if I wanted to mislead my constituency. Or avoid the scrutiny of IL that bans assassination, I suppose.

Osama died of natural causes in December 2001. Even Bill O'Reilly had a news blurb about it, and his death and burial were reported in several newspapers over there. Benazir Bhutto mentioned it on TV just days or weeks before she was assassinated.

Barack announced this on 1 May 2011, and only a week or two prior, he was embarrassed (and it was recorded on video) by a friendly crowd at a $10,000 a plate dinner for his re-election campaign in San Francisco of all places, as the friendly crowd called him out on the way he was treating Bradley Manning.

But people are pretty darn gullible these days, especially when a lie is repeated frequently enough.

Does that not fail the logic test? If the Pakistanis cooperated, why would we go out of our way afterward to embarrass them by saying we kept them in the dark?

No, it doesn't fail the logic test because 1) Pakistanis have the ability to claim no knowledge of raid (before or during). 2) This makes Pakistani's life easier when it comes to North-West Pakistan. You know where Pakistan and US Special Operations and CIA's SAD has been fighting a war since 2004. But hey... people tend to forget about that part of the War on Terrorism..

Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office. H.L Mencken